"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:11:44 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...

snip

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug

"What say?" I'd say you just proved my point.

I'd say it was more of a caveat than a threat.

When you're trying to get a call that far off the plate, you know you're
wading in sophistic bull****, Larry. The next step for you is to drink the
Hoppe's. d8-)

Hey, between the two of us, _I'm_ not the paranoid one drinking Brady
koolaid.


Like the teacher
showing the students the paddle versus actually grabbing the errant
****ant, bending them over the knees, and paddling up some nice
blisters. If you and the pols didn't like this cue, what will you say
when the actual paddling starts?

The "actual paddling," which Steve and many others deny, is the
consequence
of that unambiguous cue. It's interesting that you, among all of the
sophists and gun-nut casuists, really get the point. It's even more
interesting that you think it makes perfect sense.

I didn't say I'd do it, and I didn't say I agreed with it entirely,
and I didn't say it didn't cause other problems, but I am glad it was
done.

You sound like those punks who stand behind the schoolyard bully while he
grabs some kid from the other side of the tracks and beats him up. You
wouldn't actually do it yourself, and it would cause you some problems if
you did, but you're glad that he's doing it, eh?

So, if you're glad, why don't you have the guts to do it yourself? Are you
glad because you think it's the right thing to do, or are you glad because
you want to see them threatened or killed, but you're afraid to get involved
and you're glad that you'll stay out of trouble?

Until the perps in D.C. get the idea that the people won't stand
for much more of this ****, that kind of thing will happen more
often...until something breaks.

Another Kent State-like incident will
kick off the impending revolution pretty easily, don't you think?

And are you looking forward to it? If not, why are you "glad"?


BTW, you, among all, have historically underestimated my intelligence,
while I have overestimated yours.

What I'm wondering about now is your character.

You picked up this "cartridge box" stuff from Gunner, I'll bet. Being "glad"
that people are threatening the President, but making sure you keep your own
hands clean, is a trailer-trash thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress